Six Players

[eckert]

The officials do not recognize that Team A has six players participating during a live ball. Team A calls time out, and the time out is awarded by an official. As the players are moving toward their bench areas, an official recognizes that Team A had six players participating and immediately assesses Team A a technical foul. Is the official correct?

[BktBallRef]

Sounds like an IAABO question to me. The rule does not address whether the infraction must be discovered while the ball is live.

This case play is the only one addressing the situation that I know of.

10.1.6 SITUATION: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6 properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in, the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had six players on the court.
RULING: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

The officials become aware of the infraction during a dead ball in (b) but in this case, it's after time has expired. For that reason, it isn't penalized. I take it that it would have been penalized if this was just during a dead ball in the 3rd qtr., for example. Using that logic, the official in the original play is correct.

But having read some of the wacky IAABO interpretations in the past, who knows what they think?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Sounds like an IAABO question to me. The rule does not address whether the infraction must be discovered while the ball is live.

This case play is the only one addressing the situation that I know of.

10.1.6 SITUATION: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6 properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in, the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had six players on the court.
RULING: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

The officials become aware of the infraction during a dead ball in (b) but in this case, it's after time has expired. For that reason, it isn't penalized. I take it that it would have been penalized if this was just during a dead ball in the 3rd qtr., for example. Using that logic, the official in the original play is correct.

But having read some of the wacky IAABO interpretations in the past, who knows what they think?

First, there is no such animal as an IAABO interpretations. Our interpreters make interpretations just like any other LOA interpreter would. And a good interpreter interprets the rules according to the NFHS rules and casebook plays.

Second, I agree with you that the casebook play that you quote is the most applicable one for the situation. But I think that it is a fifty-fifty call to whether a technical foul is appropriate in this situation. Since a team timeout has been granted to Team A, the ball is now dead and it was Team B that is claiming the Team A had six players on the court. I do not think that this meets the requirement that the officials discover the infraction while Team A has six players on the court while the ball is live.

My problem with your calling a technical foul is because Team B brought it to the officials attention. If the officials discovered that Team A had six players on the court after the timeout was granted I could possibly accept a technical foul charged to Team A.

[ref18]

When a timeout is called, bench personell (why can't this forum have spellcheck?) can come onto the court. If it was missed while the ball is live, you can't penalize it during the time out.

Calling a T during the time out for 6 players on the floor would almost like calling a T for having more than 5 players in the huddle on the floor. I don't think the rules will let us do that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ref18
When a timeout is called, bench personell (why can't this forum have spellcheck?) can come onto the court. If it was missed while the ball is live, you can't penalize it during the time out.

Calling a T during the time out for 6 players on the floor would almost like calling a T for having more than 5 players in the huddle on the floor. I don't think the rules will let us do that.

That is why I have problems with a technical foul after the fact.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
First, there is no such animal as an IAABO interpretations.

You can call it what you like. But when the answer to a IAABO quiz question is contrary to the NFHS intepretation, then that my friend is an IAABO interpretation. And that has happened, as I have read them. You won't change my mind of that.

BTW, Team B pointing out the infraction has nothing to do with the T not being assessed in the case play. It's not assessed because time has expired.

[WinterWillie]

IAABO exists only to educate its members as to the game of basketball.

NFHS is the sole authority in making the rules as applied to high school basketball while allowing for variations of them by a state association.

[eckert]

Could we try this again without the NFHS v. IAABO stuff? Can anyone respond definitively by rule to this situation, which happened in Virginia last week? To emphasize, an official discovered the six players after the timeout had been awarded and as the players were walking to their benches.

[Back In The Saddle]

The officials have definite knowledge that A was playing with six players. In my book, that's a T. Why should live ball/dead ball/time out have anything to do with it?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
The officials have definite knowledge that A was playing with six players. In my book, that's a T. Why should live ball/dead ball/time out have anything to do with it?

The problem is that the officials never discovered that Team A had six players in the game until they were told by Team B during a Team A team timeout. If the officials did not see Team A playing with six players how can they charge Team A with a technical foul.

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
The officials have definite knowledge that A was playing with six players. In my book, that's a T. Why should live ball/dead ball/time out have anything to do with it?

Because it's a slippery slope. How far back in time is it reasonable, practical for such an ex post facto pentalty to be enforced. What if it 'comes to light' in the second half and happened in the first? The impact on the game, strategically, of imposing a penalty receedingly far after something has happened, can be significant.

Penalize it if discovered while the ball is live.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The problem is that the officials never discovered that Team A had six players in the game until they were told by Team B during a Team A team timeout. If the officials did not see Team A playing with six players how can they charge Team A with a technical foul.

Sorry, I was looking at the original sitch, in which the officials discover it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef

Because it's a slippery slope. How far back in time is it reasonable, practical for such an ex post facto pentalty to be enforced. What if it 'comes to light' in the second half and happened in the first? The impact on the game, strategically, of imposing a penalty receedingly far after something has happened, can be significant.

Penalize it if discovered while the ball is live.

I'm not sure where the right place is to draw the line. But before the ball becomes live after the time out (again, in the original sitch), is certainly not too long. On the other hand, once the ball becomes live after the time out, I think that's too late. Hey, maybe I'm sure after all

[goldie_locke]

During a JV game the other night, Team B was going to shoot 2 fouls shots. Team A had 6 players on the court. We did not put the ball in play and directed the 6th player off the court. Was this correct?

[ref18]

I would've done the same thing. Good use of preventative officiating.